Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

I found a 1992 version of a small astronomy book. I point out that comet theory of "dirty snowballs" is still acceptable, regardless if they are not icey dirty snowballs. The reasoning follows.

This has enormous implications to all theory in science. It is now worse than politics, it rivals religion.

As well, I was naïve to consider that the people on this forum would have the capacity for creative thinking, because they are not trained as such. They are trained to not question the root assumptions of their parent organizations.

__________________Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

Wrong, jeffreyw: That is a you in in a car talking about irrelevant things to this thread.
Starting with reading a irrelevant, random pamphlet from the internet.
Science is not a religion or dogma as you assert. Scientist have to propose possible theories and back them up with evidence.

The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis is not a possible theory for the simple reason that planets do not have the masses of even the lightest stars.

"Dissent" in science is very, very appreciated. Every science student learns about the history of science and how theories are often overthrown by better theories from "dissenters".

There is lots of irrelevant blathering about dissent dogma, politics, etc. And the insanity that science is worse than politics!

You state that a scientific theory has to make sense and cannot see that your theory is just a bunch of nonsense !

A law of physics is a set of observations that have been tested so often that the theory describing them is confirmed enough to be called a law. Their limits are known. They are continued to be tested. They can be overthrown. They are not a religious law that is set in stone. They are a bit like legal laws.

You got "nailed" because your theory is so obviously nonsense while you tout it is the best thing since sliced bread!

As well, I was naïve to consider that the people on this forum would have the capacity for creative thinking, because they are not trained as such. They are trained to not question the root assumptions of their parent organizations.

So where do I sign up for creativity training?

__________________"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth

I found a 1992 version of a small astronomy book. I point out that comet theory of "dirty snowballs" is still acceptable, regardless if they are not icey dirty snowballs. The reasoning follows.

This has enormous implications to all theory in science. It is now worse than politics, it rivals religion.

As well, I was naïve to consider that the people on this forum would have the capacity for creative thinking, because they are not trained as such. They are trained to not question the root assumptions of their parent organizations.

Methinks you might be a touch confused, old chap. The operative phrase is "creative thinking", in which *both* words apply.

I have absolutely no doubt you're being creative, but you have been taken to task across the entire internet for the absence of the "thinking" part.

Had you really been thinking about your pet hypothesis, you might have noticed the glaring inconsistencies between the claims made in the hypothesis, and observed behaviours. Instead, everybody has had to point them out to you, apparently triggering this evidence-free descent into martyrdom...

If only all that time wasted on creating multiple spammy websites and appeals to martyrdom had been spent on thinking...

__________________What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....

I found a 1992 version of a small astronomy book. I point out that comet theory of "dirty snowballs" is still acceptable, regardless if they are not icey dirty snowballs.

A Video of a Guy in a Car is Not Science, jeffreyw. Following up by insulting posters in this forum does not is a video about science either.

You are wrong, jeffreyw. The scientific theory of comets is still valid and accepted .
What has changed is the descriptive term applied to comets. Pre Deep Impact (2005) observations were that comets were icy with a little dirt especially on the surface. So astronomers described them as "dirty snowballs" and the model was popularly called the "dirty snowball" model. But astronomers always knew that comets change. As more volatiles are driven off a comet becomes an "icy dirt ball" and then just a "bunch of dirt" (not a comet y more).

Deep Impact showed that even active comets can have a lot of dirt. Tempel 1 is an example of a such a comet. It was described as an "icy dirtball" in a press release. And that term pops up every so often.

About the video:

That popular science book you are holding was copyrighted in 1987 and contains information relevant before 1987. You uselessly read out the printings up to 1991.

Wow - a popular science book from 1987 describes comets as icy !

More irrelevant text is read.

Comments about artist renderings of comets!
The painting you show is nothing like what comets were known to look like in 1987. The comet is white, not a deep grey or even black. But the artist made it look pretty.
These artist impressions were probably all that was available - the first images from a comet flyby were from the Halley flybys in 1986 and were not detailed.

A lie about the "Rosetta mission has shown quite clearly that comets are not big ice balls".
Rosetta measured the density of 67P as 4 g/cc which shows that 67P is made up of ice .

The density of comets is not "a lot lower then they are predicted".
It is the measured density of comets being below that of water that lead to the "dirty snowball" description in the first place. For 67P the density measurement has actually increased (probably due to its volume being over estimated before).

That ignorance of the density of comets leads to a fantasy about impacts which leads to a delusion about "star shrapnel" and comet being rock.

The delusion that astronomy students learned their science from the book he has and are now running the Rosetta mission.

You repeat the lie about 67P not being icy.
No water ice on the surface but plenty of water and other ices sublimating below the surface to form jets.

A bit of ranting about students being somehow brainwashed into thinking that comets are icy when the reality is that they are presented with the evidence and told the conclusion.
Comets have densities less then water. Comets emit gases that have to be from ices. Hit a comet with a spacecraft (Deep Impact) and you measure

Quote:

A total of 5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) of water[40] and between 10 and 25 million kilograms (22 and 55 million pounds) of dust were lost from the impact.[38]

More ignorance - the Rosetta papers have ""literally hundreds" of authors because literally hundreds of scientists work on the Rosetta mission.

A repeat of the fantasy that 67P is not icy that it is "just rocks".

The really bad suggestion that students who have ideas that are not mainstream should abandon their studies and "learn a trade" .
It is post-graduate studies that teach students to question the mainstream. They are taught how to critically analyze work that has been done. That is the major point of doing an MSc or Phd thesis.

Telling people that you work in electrical sales is not a good idea!
All that shows is that you are even more unlikely to have a good knowledge of science on which to base your theories on.

A fantasy that Earth is an ancient star emphasizes your need for education, jeffreyw.
Earth is rocky. Stars are not rocky.
Earth is hundreds of thousands of times lighter than the lightest stars, e.g. white dwarfs.

Ignorance about Occam's razor.
This is not a simple guess at what happens with no evidence is correct.
It is that if you have competing theories with the same support then the one with the fewest assumptions is more likely to be correct.

Paranoia about being "excommunicated" if you presented your invalid theory as a working scientist.

Your "Einstein screwed everything up" statement is yet more ignorance of science.Albert Einstein
* fixed Newtonian mechanics with Special Relativity.
* gave empirical evidence for the atomic theory.
* provided evidence for the quantization of energy and thus QM.
* E=mc^2 !
* fixed Newtonian gravitation with General Relativity.
* contributed extensively to the development and criticism of modern quantum theory.

As well, I was naïve to consider that the people on this forum would have the capacity for creative thinking, because they are not trained as such. They are trained to not question the root assumptions of their parent organizations.

I agree because the same thing happened with potatocar theory. You would think people calling themselves "scientists" would be more openminded.

Proven and demonstrated? So scientists have demonstrated how fusion works in stars? Where? Who did it? Why was I not informed of this working fusion reactor?

That's a good question, because there are a number of working fusion reactors. Just because none of the ones we're capable of building are able to output star-level power gains does not mean that they aren't fusion reactors and that we don't understand how the process works.

__________________Truthers only insist that there must have been some sinister purpose behind [WTC7] because they already think there's a sinister purpose behind everything. -Horatius

Proven and demonstrated? So scientists have demonstrated how fusion works in stars? Where? Who did it? Why was I not informed of this working fusion reactor?

Perhaps because you do not read scientific literature? The fusion process in stars has been known since the 1950s, and it has been verified by the measurements of solar neutrinos, something we note that your theory cannot explain..

What is "Proven and demonstrated", jeffreyw, is the inability to comprehend what was written in that post !
Here is Elind talking the age of stars and "the most basic related theories that are well proven and demonstrated".
The related theories include
* The ideal gas law.
Any body of gas that collapses (e.g. under gravity) will heat up and increase pressure. If the body is made up of primarily hydrogen and is big enough then the heat and pressure will build up.
* The laws of nuclear physics.
These state that hydrogen under enough heat and pressure will cause fusion.
The result is the prediction of fusion in stars !
That prediction includes the solar neutrinos which have been detected. Thus fusion in stars has been ''proven and demonstrated".

The ideal gas law has been tested and demonstrated for centuries.
The laws of nuclear physics have been tested and demonstrated for many decades. The fact that fusion reactors exist for research and hopefully commercially in the future is due to our knowledge of nuclear physics.

No one who knows about stars expects fusion reactors to be actual stars. No one is stupid enough to construct a fusion reactor that is 333,000 heavier than the Earth !
Fusion reactors duplicate the pressures and temperatures expected for the center of stars, not the stars themselves.

Fusion reactors duplicate the pressures and temperatures expected for the center of stars, not the stars themselves.

And to further drive home your point, they might not even do that, they may use unusual mixtures of isotopes to relax those constraints. None of which changes the fact that all the reactions happening in our star, and many others, have been demonstrated here on Earth by scientists.

__________________REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Proven and demonstrated? So scientists have demonstrated how fusion works in stars? Where? Who did it? Why was I not informed of this working fusion reactor?

I was waiting for you to explain your statement made a long time ago.

You said that 'the older planets (Earth, Venus, Neptune) do not have spectrums.'

I swore on Lysenkos grave that I would not tell you about my working fusion reactor until you explained to me what you meant by spectrums. I have to know what 'spectrums' are, and which planets do emit 'spectrums'. Further, I would like citations from any astronomer who has shown any planet that doesn't emit 'spectrums'.

I will be satisfied if you can cite any study that shows that a planet emits 'spectra'. Quote a sentence in any astronomical journal that you like which contains the phrase, 'emitting spectra'.

Why didn't you tell us what spectrums are? How can a planet emit spectra? Or spectrums, for that matter ?-)

I will emit a temper spectrum before I demonstrate a fusion reaction !-)

__________________"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov

The only way for smaller bodies to have formed is with destructive methods, not accretion. Rocks and minerals need pressure, heat and time to form, and outer space doesn't provide pressure, heat... or the amount of time to form the Earth (many millions of years) just isn't included.

Proven and demonstrated? So scientists have demonstrated how fusion works in stars? Where? Who did it? Why was I not informed of this working fusion reactor?

Why is a fusion reactor needed? All that is needed is to show that the stellar matter will fuse if the pressure gravity will exert in the center of the sun is applied.
That has been done in the 50's, often with pretty mushroom clouds as a result, but also in more controlled experiments with smaller amounts of matter.

I thought that pressure, heat, and time is exactly what there is in abundance inside interstellar gas clouds!

Jeffrey's YouTube video above is a textbook example of Dunning-Kruger. He starts by saying there is no pressure to drive agglomeration and densification because space is a vacuum and has zero pressure! But as wrong as that is, at least it's sincere, as compared with the lies and obfuscation we get from most crackpot sources.

__________________"You do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.”-Fran Lebowitz

Jeffrey's YouTube video above is a textbook example of Dunning-Kruger. He starts by saying there is no pressure to drive agglomeration and densification because space is a vacuum and has zero pressure! But as wrong as that is, at least it's sincere, as compared with the lies and obfuscation we get from most crackpot sources.

How is that sincere? His theory is of "Stellar Metamorphosis", stars becoming planets. How did those stars form without something to drive that agglomeration and densification? So he either needs a workable theory of stellar formation without agglomeration and densification or he is simply being insincere in asserting such things can't happen in a vacuum.

Jeffrey's YouTube video above is a textbook example of Dunning-Kruger. He starts by saying there is no pressure to drive agglomeration and densification because space is a vacuum and has zero pressure! But as wrong as that is, at least it's sincere, as compared with the lies and obfuscation we get from most crackpot sources.

I disagree. The "lies and obfuscations" start showing up when crackpots try to argue for their theories---answering questions or rebutting criticism. During the "spewing assertions" phase, they all sound pretty much like Wolynski does.

Unlike (e.g.) Crothers or Robitaille or Mozina or whoever, Wolynski has been stalled in this embryonic spewing phase and seems prepared to stay there for the foreseeable future.

Unlike (e.g.) Crothers or Robitaille or Mozina or whoever, Wolynski has been stalled in this embryonic spewing phase and seems prepared to stay there for the foreseeable future.

All I'm saying is that as I watched his video, he seemed to sincerely believe what he said, as opposed to others, like the EU crowd, who spew nonsense knowing full well, IMO, it's nonsense. I say that looking at the video in and of itself. In the larger context of his failure to respond to the corrections made in these threads, his support of Crothers, etc. his behavior iseems like that of any other crackpot.

__________________"You do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.”-Fran Lebowitz

I disagree. The "lies and obfuscations" start showing up when crackpots try to argue for their theories---answering questions or rebutting criticism. During the "spewing assertions" phase, they all sound pretty much like Wolynski does.

Unlike (e.g.) Crothers or Robitaille or Mozina or whoever, Wolynski has been stalled in this embryonic spewing phase and seems prepared to stay there for the foreseeable future.

Wolynski, to his credit, has begun testing his theories. Here is an experiment he recently conducted that proves… well, I’m not really sure what it proves… but it is an experiment of some sort:

In this video I overview the mainstream's interpretation of how rocky/metal bodies are formed in outer space (which is essentially backwards and ignores basic geological knowledge).

Sorry, jeffreyw, but videos displaying an abysmal absence of knowledge about astronomy do not help your case !
Geology is not astronomy!

How "rocky/metal bodies are formed in outer space" is gravity, i.e. the accretion you fantasize as impossible and we see happening every day.

There is a lie in your post: No one says that Earth formed in zero time - that is your fantasy, not astronomy.Planetary formation takes millions of years.

Quote:

After millions of years, countless encounters between these planetesimals have cleared out much of the disk's debris and have built up much larger — and many fewer — objects that now dominate their regions. A planetary system is reaching maturity.

Planets from out of existing rocks - no problem there.
The rocks have minerals in them () so no problem with planets having minerals.

Actually it is more like Jeffrey Wolynski has begun to test his fantasies about physics. This case is a fantasy that gravitation has to weld metal in order for the nebular hypothesis to be correct !
Jeffrey Wolynski thinks that what clumps together in protoplanetary nebula is metal. He is wrong - it is rocks. They are held together primarily by gravity, not wielding.
The insanity comes when he drops a bar of metal onto another and expects it to melt and weld at the low velocity imparted by the bar dropping about a meter! It is almost as if he was never told about kinetic energy or gravity at school.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.